Movie theatre shooting SYG trial (to move, kosher, activity)

[Irishiis49]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

I dint know that she doesn't have a point, when Reeves went to report Oulson, the representative of the theatre should have walked back with Reeves, it was his duty to provide a safe environment for their patrons, the employee was negligent in not escorting Reeves back to his seat confronting oulson and diffusing the situation. Again the description of Oulson as violent was made by Reeves to the employee, the reason it's mentioned is because the employee was not there so if Reeves walked up to him and said we have a violent aggressive patron back in the theatre the employee should have taken Reeves at his word and done something, but he didn't therefore he was negligent.
In no way shape or form does it mean that Oulsen wife is staying that her husband was the aggressor.

Absolutely the theater employee should have returned with Reeves to the scene...the civil and criminal case have nothing to do with one another...

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

I am not going to continue discussion on the matter as I have clearly stated my perspective on the matter.

You know nothing about Reeves' background so let me advise you.

In 1966, he joined the Tampa Police Department.

Reeves' supervisors thought he was good at his job, and he quickly rose up the ranks. In the mid '70s, he and a co-worker started a SWAT team. They got FBI training, gathered World War II supplies from the nearby Army Navy Surplus store and named it the "tactical response team" to differentiate it from the then-popular television show S.W.A.T.

Reeves briefly worked as one of the department's first hostage negotiators and trained at the U.S. Army's sniper school, finishing No. 2 out of 20.

Reeves received training in firearms of all types. He was part of the competitive Pistol Club and became the agency's firearms coordinator in the '80s.

In the tactical unit, Reeves was well-liked. After work, SWAT and bomb team guys would hunt and fish together. Retired Senior Sgt. Jim Diamond worked closely with Reeves for about 15 years and considered him "very personable."


"Under Florida law, the actions of the accused made in lawful self-defense justify an act that is otherwise criminal. Self-defense can be asserted for any violence crime such as Assault or Battery, Aggravated Battery, Aggravated Assault, Manslaughter, Attempted Murder, or Murder."

"Basic “self-defense” law in Florida (Section 776.012(2), Florida Statutes) states that a “person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony”. In Section 776.08, Florida Statutes, a “forcible felony” is defined as “treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

Reeves therefore was justified in using deadly force.

The caveat being that the jury has to buy that snatching his popcorn was assault which is an stretch for most people. I agree with you that Reeves could have believed that he was in danger and did not intent to kill Olsen over a bag of popcorn but rather sought to stop a future attack that no one other than oulsen can say if it was coming or it was imaginary.

[miami_winter_breeze]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

The caveat being that the jury has to buy that snatching his popcorn was assault which is an stretch for most people. I agree with you that Reeves could have believed that he was in danger and did not intent to kill Olsen over a bag of popcorn but rather sought to stop a future attack that no one other than oulsen can say if it was coming or it was imaginary.

The jury just needs to believe, that there was a 'reasonable' chance, Reeves was afraid for his life with Oulson. Oulson was violating his space, was becoming increasingly angrier, I think everyone knows that this situation had a 'reasonable' chance to escalate worse. I mean it did, but I mean for Reeves.

[Cryptic]

Originally Posted by miami_winter_breeze

I'm a big proponent of SYG, I think it protects citizens in using their self judgement to protect themselves. I never want Florida to turn into those other states where people are afraid to do what they need to protect their lives and bodies from death or injury.

Though I can accept some SYG laws, I think Florida's rejects an awful lot of common law / common sense principals. For example, the Texas version clearly and unequivocably states that one cannot:
- provoke the other individual
- be engaged in any criminal activity at the time.

Though I would not consider asking or even uhmmm..... "asking" (I have a suspiscion that Reeves is an "asker" who likes to be obeyed) somebody to stop texting to be a provocation, I think Reeves actions reinforce the core concept of "Don't try to SYG, leave when ever possible" that some fire arms instructors teach .

Had Reeves just left, he would not be "sweating bullets" (get it, get it) that the jurors buy his spin of the events. Instead, he jumped into a rapidly escalating respect / disrespect contest with win, or lose a bad outcome for himself.

[miami_winter_breeze]

Originally Posted by Cryptic

Though I can accept some SYG laws, I think Florida's rejects an awful lot of common law / common sense principals. For example, the Texas version clearly and unequivocably states that one cannot:
- provoke the other individual
- be engaged in any criminal activity at the time.

As for provoking an individual, I think this needs to be adjusted during jury deliberation, and not emphasized in the law itself. Take two people, both in a heated argument, one guy calls the other a name, the other proceeds to commit violent battery. Doesn't that first person have recourse to defend himself?

I think so.

Had Reeves just left, he would not be "sweating bullets" (get it, get it) that the jurors buy his spin of the events. Instead, he jumped into a rapidly escalating respect / disrespect contest with win, or lose a bad outcome for himself.

Obviously leaving was the right thing to do. Don't get me wrong, I think Reeves shot him out of rage, not genuine fear. But I have 'reasonable doubt' he shot him, afraid this man will continue to escalate the situation. So I'd acquit, Reeves doesn't win any man of the year awards.

[Cryptic]

Originally Posted by miami_winter_breeze

As for provoking an individual, I think this needs to be adjusted during jury deliberation, and not emphasized in the law itself. Take two people, both in a heated argument, one guy calls the other a name, the other proceeds to commit violent battery. Doesn't that first person have recourse to defend himself?

I think so.

Yes, I think the person can defend himself, and Texas law allows him to do so.

Texas law, however, also allows a jury to examine the totality of the circumstances that led to the battery. That could mean that they could find the attacker (the one who got called the name) guilty of no crime (fighting words), guilty of a reduced charge, or guilty of a full charge if the attack was totally out of proportion to the insult.

I am also pretty sure that Texas law would also allow charges to be placed against the "defender" if they felt his actions warranted it. Basically, Texas law allows people to stand their ground, but does not permit "set ups" where a person deliberately provokes another person, then shoots him.

Originally Posted by miami_winter_breeze

Obviously leaving was the right thing to do. Don't get me wrong, I think Reeves shot him out of rage, not genuine fear. But I have 'reasonable doubt' he shot him, afraid this man will continue to escalate the situation. So I'd acquit, Reeves doesn't win any man of the year awards.

My views are a little fuzzy. I could go for an acquittal based on the reasonable doubt, but only if I thought that this incident was out of character for Reeves. If I got the impression that Reeves was walking around with a "chip on his shoulder" and that something like this was going to happen sooner or later, I would convict him. This line of thought might not be fully "Kosher", but am not a computer either.

My understanding is that some people, including a teenage movie goer are going to testify that Reeves did have a "chip on his shoulder" about texting (so surprise that Reeves excuses himself from his own "no texting rules"). Therefore I would convict him of Manslaughter. He did try to go to the manager, so he was not fully pre-disposed to kill anybody who simply disrespected him in anyway. Reeves was provoked and had some fear. As such, I think Second Degree Murder is too much.

[KPB]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

I dont k now what Oulson was going to do but obviously Reeves suspected/expected an attack and Oulson's wife put her hand over her husand which I could only believe was an attempt to get him to turn around and have a seat.

Yes, I do believe Oulson was ready and quite able to do harm to Reeves - Why would anyone think otherwise.

In all the years of experience Reeve's had training on combat/swat, and de-escalating situations I would think that he'd be able to tell/sense if the confrontation was about to get physical (body language, squared up, raising fists, etc).
I honestly believe as Reeves himself stated that he wanted to teach Oulson a lesson by Reeves quote "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me".

I just dont believe Oulson was going to do anything further than throwing the pocorn, I believe he was done after that.
Oulsons character doesn't seem like the type of man who would beat up an old man IMO.

Reeves character on the other hand, based on coworker's statement's, the neighborhood kid playing his stereo too loud statement, and the way he talks to his wife, well most people would seem to agree he's just an old ass hole.

[jambo101]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

I am not going to continue discussion on the matter as I have clearly stated my perspective on the matter.

This case and us talking about it is probably going to go on for some time.I for one enjoy your input on the issue even though our viewpoints differ.As the court case proceeds some of our perspectives may change eh.

[KPB]

Originally Posted by jambo101

This case and us talking about it is probably going to go on for some time.I for one enjoy your input on the issue even though our viewpoints differ.As the court case proceeds some of our perspectives may change eh.

I don't see a problem w/ discussing this topic as long as we continue to do so in a respectful manner.

I know the last thread on this matter got closed and I'm happy this one is still open.

Although I may disagree w/ Springhillian's viewpoints, I still respect his opinion.

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

I don't know that she doesn't have a point, when Reeves went to report Oulson, the representative of the theatre should have walked back with Reeves, it was his duty to provide a safe environment for their patrons, the employee was negligent in not escorting Reeves back to his seat confronting oulson and diffusing the situation. Again the description of Oulson as violent was made by Reeves to the employee, the reason it's mentioned is because the employee was not there so if Reeves walked up to him and said we have a violent aggressive patron back in the theatre the employee should have taken Reeves at his word and done something, but he didn't therefore he was negligent.
In no way shape or form does it mean that Oulsen wife is saying that her husband was the aggressor.

I agree with your take on this. The theater management should have intervened.